Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:03 pm
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:42 pm At this point, I have to ask: do you understand what a logical argument is, and how one can demonstrate that a logical argument is unsound, if, indeed, it is unsound?
It's pretty clear from your response that the answer is "No".
I made my critiques of your argument. It contained false premises. You brushed all that off, but didn't change any facts.

God says He will judge.

Harry says He can't.

Gary says He ought to.

That's where we are.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:22 pm I made my critiques of your argument.
Honestly, you didn't. You just ignored it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:22 pm It contained false premises.
Which premises in particular? There are only four of them (the other two numbered lines are inferences). Cite a number or set of numbers.
Last edited by Harry Baird on Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Christianity

Post by DPMartin »

Age wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:23 pm
What is 'a reality'?

That some of 'you', adult human beings fear death? If yes, then I do NOT think ANY one would disagree with this.

Or, is 'it',

That death is something to fear? If yes, then I KNOW 'you' are Wrong.


Are 'you' here saying that if someone FEARS some 'thing', then that by itself means that that 'one' has some 'courage'.


What 'religious' 'stuff', EXACTLY, do 'you' BELIEVE?

There are SO MANY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS, as well as YOUR VERY OWN INTERPRETATIONS, and MISINTERPRETATIONS.

For example 'you' STILL BELIEVE that God is a male gendered 'thing', correct?

And this particular 'religious' 'stuff' is SO ABSURD that to NOT even ALREADY KNOW that 'it' is a COMPLETE and UTTER MISINTERPRETATION makes one wonder about the SANITY of the one with THAT BELIEF.
Its understandable to take a stand against fear but its more to the experience thereof. The unknown experience, or for example should someone fear the experience of a tormenting insanity. Or extreme pain that’s unrelenting. These are all realities, correct?

On the male God thing, if one’s God is the Creator of all things made then surly what was made has been generated or produced formed and caused by said Creator, hence, fathered. Therefore, it would be correct to call the Creator Father or Father of all things, but the "Father" is a reconition of the reationship within and through Jesus Christ.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5087
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:35 pmAnd if we accept that the Bible does, indeed, claim that God will judge (and how can we not?), then we have two options. One is to refuse to believe it, because one is having difficulty understanding how it works...and the assumption has to be, "If I don't (yet) understand, it cannot happen."

Now, is that a reasonable assumption?
There is a wide group of interpretive options, in fact.

One can certainly accept that the Bible, in the Old Testament and in the New, makes a range of claims about judgment. And one can also be certain that claims are made about the prospect, and the asserted reality, of an eternal hell-realm. Yet the option is open to examine those assertions from a different perspective. And one perspective is that a priestly class handles, creates & fabricates, the narrative voice that is given to Yahweh for the purposes of controlling the Hebrew tribe or culture and in keeping them on an established track of destroying the religious cultures of the people around them through what I have termed Hebrew idea imperialism.

In order to investigate the claim I make here requires a more nuanced reading, a more careful reading, of the Torah texts. One must start there.

That narrative voice, handled by a priest-class, tells the people of that culture that they are commanded to invade, rape, murder and enslave those people in surrounding lands who worship different gods. The story begins at the point of invasion and conquest and the ideological and theological justification for it. It is a religious ideology that is part of a military strategy and operation. The priest-class says, quite literally and effectively, "You will make no deals with any other people. Those who I command you to destroy and kill you will destroy and kill without exception".

I have presented here one avenue, or one intellectual strategy, for rereading those original texts.

Once one has identified the *real impetus* and the *real function* of a priest-class handling a divine voice, trust me, the entire picture changes. One has access to another interpretive model. At that point the notion of a 'god who judges' is seen in a different light. Why? Because the narrative voice and the *divine voice* is understood to be a manipulation. And really a manipulation at a most essential level. Because the implication (as you make clear with your various quotations) is that if you do not *believe in* this narrative voice that you will suffer the worst sort of suffering possible. The punishment is (psychologically) absolutely terrifying to someone who is not equipped to oppose it.

One needs to gain proficiency in understanding how these psycho-religious myths actually work. So the focus is on *the wielding of text* and the *wielding of narrative* as well as psycho-cultural manipulation.

Research in this area dovetails into large issues such as propaganda schemes, the manipulation of thought, the machinations of mind-control, etc.

Now at a metaphysical level to have pointed out what I have pointed out does not deny, necessarily, either the soul's existence nor of the eventuality of consequence for that soul.

What Harry has argued against is one dimension of specific, and limited, belief. But there are numerous other possibilities available. That is, if one were not (as Dubious and Henry seem to be) intent on becoming divested from any metaphysical view.

But those alternatives, Immanuel, are outside and beyond consideration given your religious fanaticism. Religious fanaticism has you in its grip and you cannot let go. And as I suggest it is here that Hebrew idea imperialism needs to be examined far more closely. It needs to become the topic of conversation itself.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:22 pm I made my critiques of your argument.
Honestly, you didn't. You just ignored it.
Honestly, I did.

Don't you remember? I said that your critique had no reasonable concept of justice, even while mentioning the word. (I might have easily said the same thing about "mercy" or "love," but did not). I said that you had no element of free will written into your objection, so I asked you if you were a Determinist -- which you never answered. I said you had the wrong conception of "original sin," and you said you did not.

You heard all that, and payed no attention, and just ploughed ahead.

And it's moot, now.

You have the Word of God in front of you. You know what you need to know.

Nothing I say is more important than that. Now it's between you and God. I have no say about the disposition of your soul.

But you do.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:22 pm I made my critiques of your argument.
Honestly, you didn't. You just ignored it.
Honestly, I did.
If you did, then you would have been able to answer this question:
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:22 pm [Harry's argument] contained false premises.
Which premises in particular? There are only four of them (the other two numbered lines are inferences). Cite a number or set of numbers.
But you didn't. So, I repeat it: which numbered premise(s) in my argument do you contend are false, and why?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm I said that your critique had no reasonable concept of justice, even while mentioning the word.
So, again, as I initially responded, you seem to be contending (implying at the very least) that infinite, unimaginable torment for finite crimes is just. Are you? If so, how do you justify that? So far your answer has been *crickets*.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm (I might have easily said the same thing about "mercy" or "love," but did not).
And I might ask the same thing as above of justice. In fact, I have done. Again, *crickets*.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm I said that you had no element of free will written into your objection
And I pointed out to you that premise #3 assumes free will since otherwise punishment has no basis - not that an infinite punishment for finite crimes has any basis anyhow.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm I asked you if you were a Determinist -- which you never answered.
I am not a determinist, as if that wasn't blindingly obvious.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm I said you had the wrong conception of "original sin," and you said you did not.
I invited you to share the conception of "original sin" that you consider to be right, but all you did was vaguely refer to something you might have said to seeds. When I invited you to link me in to the post(s) to seeds in question, you ignored me.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm You heard all that, and payed no attention, and just ploughed ahead.
Ah, isn't projection such a fine thing?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:22 pm I made my critiques of your argument.
Honestly, you didn't. You just ignored it.
Honestly, I did.

Don't you remember? I said that your critique had no reasonable concept of justice, even while mentioning the word. (I might have easily said the same thing about "mercy" or "love," but did not). I said that you had no element of free will written into your objection, so I asked you if you were a Determinist -- which you never answered. I said you had the wrong conception of "original sin," and you said you did not.

You heard all that, and payed no attention, and just ploughed ahead.

And it's moot, now.

You have the Word of God in front of you. You know what you need to know.

Nothing I say is more important than that. Now it's between you and God. I have no say about the disposition of your soul.

But you do.
You have posted a contradiction between what God can and cannot do. But are you open to contemplating the door which explains it?
"When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door." Simone Weil
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Nick, some sincere questions/comments for you below. Even if they come across as challenging, I do not mean any ill will. I look forward to your sincere answers in your own words.
Nick_A wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:15 pm
Lacewing wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:50 am
Nick_A wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:10 am Again, as I've explained the majority have lost their sense of scale and relativity necessary to experience objective quality. People argue over belief systems without the experience of objective quality or the relation of phenomenon to its source. Why argue Christianity without distinguishing, even theoretically, its secular or transcendent origin?
For clarity, let's be specific. Do you think the majority of Christians reside in a cave'?
I don't know what you mean by "Christians"? Do you mean exoteric Christians or Christendom, or transcendent Christians at a higher level of consciousness?
Whatever type you want to include/exclude. Don't you often divide people into groups of 'secularists' and 'non-secularists'? Are non-secularists a big part of that majority who you imagine to live in a cave?
Lacewing wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:50 amDo you think you reside in a cave?
Nick_A wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:15 pmYes. My advantage over you is in realzing my position.
Two things: What makes you think you know me at all? What makes you think you know much of anything if you're in a cave?
Nick_A wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:15 pmI have no need to attack what attacks my imagined self esteem.
Well you clearly have a need to imagine such a thing of others. You have no idea what other people are doing, nor why. Why wouldn't these stories that you tell be a result of the shadows on the wall of your cave (as you refer to it).

If something you say doesn't make sense, it's not because someone is attacking you based on their self-esteem -- rather, it's likely because it doesn't make sense to their perspective. Why wouldn't 'the divine' manifest through all? Why would 'the divine' need to manifest in any particular way?
Nick_A wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:15 pmMost at the exoteric plane of existence speak of values and resort to nastiness doing the opposite. Hypocrisy is then justified by a group. A sign of those who have left the cave is that they don't defend hypocrisy. This is freedom. Communication is then possible.
How do you know about leaving the cave if you're in the cave? How do you know what other people are doing? How do you know that you're not misunderstanding what is going on? How is your opinion of what is going on for others more valid than what they know their own perspective is?
Lacewing wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:50 amDo you think you can discern who is and is not residing in a cave?
Nick_A wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:15 pmWhy judge others? I know I am in the cave so am learning cave dynamics. I begin to understand why it is so. I've learned It is such an insulting idea to pride that it cannot be tolerated on sites dominated by secularism. It must be left alone so people can argue beliefs.
So, you don't think you judge others when you claim to know what they're doing and why?

Why would it be reasonable to think that what you're 'learning' is any more useful or true than what other people are learning?

What makes you think you know how things should be?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:18 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:24 pm Honestly, you didn't. You just ignored it.
Honestly, I did.
If you did, then you would have been able to answer this question:
Read again. I repeated some of the critiques in my last message.

However, you weren't interested in them then, and I don't suppose you are now. But here we go.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm I said that your critique had no reasonable concept of justice, even while mentioning the word.
So, again, as I initially responded, you seem to be contending (implying at the very least) that infinite, unimaginable torment for finite crimes is just.
I'm asking what you understand "justice" to entail. That's all. I'm not asking you for any more. Any extrapolation from that is simply your own, and I feel no duty to take ownership of it.
premise #3 assumes free will since otherwise punishment has no basis
Right. So far, so good. If human beings cannot change anything, they cannot be guilty of anything, and also cannot complain about anything. So it would stultify the entire discussion, if you were to presume that.

But then it makes me wonder: where, in your objections, is the idea that human beings have a will of their own represented? The whole argument simply views the world, and judgment, as something God "does to people," so to speak. You don't even mention what they do to each other and to themselves, and how that would play into any conception of justice. So on free will, your argument is silent.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm I said you had the wrong conception of "original sin," and you said you did not.
I invited you to share the conception of "original sin" that you consider to be right, but all you did was vaguely refer to something you might have said to seeds.
I'm not going to repeat that, since I dealt with seeds' objection twice already, at some length. I'm bored with his/her misunderstanding, which seems to me purely emotive (he/she likes baby pictures), and to which he/she seems wedded. If that's some part of the argument you consider essential, then you can go back and take issue with what I said to him.

Personally, I don't think you have much interest in that point. You say you're not a Determinist, and what Seeds wants to make of it is that, in his view, God arbitrarily assigns sins to people who don't have any. But that's Determinism, as well as an errant view of the Doctrine of Original Sin. And as you say, you're not a Determinist.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:11 pm
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:18 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm
Honestly, I did.
If you did, then you would have been able to answer this question:
Read again. I repeated some of the critiques in my last message.
There's no answer in any of them. Here, again, is what I asked you, with emphasis added:
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:18 pm I repeat [my question]: which numbered premise(s) in my argument do you contend are false, and why?
That's the only question that matters at this point, but I'll anyway indulge you by responding to the rest of your post, even though I have the distinct feeling that you're trolling at a moderately skilled level.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm I said that your critique had no reasonable concept of justice, even while mentioning the word.
So, again, as I initially responded, you seem to be contending (implying at the very least) that infinite, unimaginable torment for finite crimes is just.
I'm asking what you understand "justice" to entail.
No, you're dodging my question, because I've already answered yours. So, again: is it your contention that the punishment of infinite, unimaginable torment for finite crimes is just?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:11 pm But then it makes me wonder: where, in your objections, is the idea that human beings have a will of their own represented? The whole argument simply views the world, and judgment, as something God "does to people," so to speak. You don't even mention what they do to each other and to themselves, and how that would play into any conception of justice. So on free will, your argument is silent.
No, again, my argument is not silent on free will. Its third premise is that no matter what finite crimes persons might freely commit in their finite lives, an infinite punishment is neither just nor loving.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm I said you had the wrong conception of "original sin," and you said you did not.
I invited you to share the conception of "original sin" that you consider to be right, but all you did was vaguely refer to something you might have said to seeds.
I'm not going to repeat that
You don't have to repeat it, just link to it. I literally have no idea what you're referring to.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:25 pm
I'm asking what you understand "justice" to entail.
No, you're dodging my question, because I've already answered yours. So, again: is it your contention that the punishment of infinite, unimaginable torment for finite crimes is just?
Heh. :D No, no, Harry: you do not get to hand me your favourite "script," and have me parrot it for you, or defend your words as if I had to believe what you demand. Those are not my words, and I can speak for myself.

Meanwhile, I'm asking you a question, and you can answer it or not. But if you can't, then there's no more to be said: for then, there isn't even a standard to which you can refer in alleging God to be unfair or unjust Himself.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:11 pm But then it makes me wonder: where, in your objections, is the idea that human beings have a will of their own represented? The whole argument simply views the world, and judgment, as something God "does to people," so to speak. You don't even mention what they do to each other and to themselves, and how that would play into any conception of justice. So on free will, your argument is silent.
No, again, my argument is not silent on free will. Its third premise is that no matter what finite crimes persons might freely commit in their finite lives, an infinite punishment is neither just nor loving.
That just means "free will has no relevance." That's false, by your own earlier explanation of why you're not a Determinist, even. So it's true: you have no role for free will in your account.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Always, from you, the same evasiveness, over and over. Again, then, I point out that you need to address my argument directly if you think you have a way of demonstrating that it is not cogent:
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:18 pm I repeat [my question]: which numbered premise(s) in my argument do you contend are false, and why?
You're on a philosophy forum. You might as well do some.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:55 am
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:25 pmSo, again: is it your contention that the punishment of infinite, unimaginable torment for finite crimes is just?
Heh. :D No, no, Harry: you do not get to hand me your favourite "script," and have me parrot it for you, or defend your words as if I had to believe what you demand. Those are not my words, and I can speak for myself.
You're caught in a trap, because you know that it would be damning to answer "Yes", but you also know that that's the entailment of your basic beliefs. I expect everybody here can see that.

There's a way out of the trap. You can concede the argument and then we can begin to have the "calm, unimpassioned, measured" conversation you seek. We could converse about what value remains in Christianity after the contradictoriness is excised; what it still gets right; how it might be adjusted (salvaged) to better fit reality; etc.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:55 am Meanwhile, I'm asking you a question [What does Harry understand "justice" to entail? --Harry], and you can answer it or not.
And as I wrote in my last post, I've already answered it. I did so in the context of a divinely-administered eternal hell, in a series of posts (the first; the second; the third).
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:55 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:11 pm But then it makes me wonder: where, in your objections, is the idea that human beings have a will of their own represented? The whole argument simply views the world, and judgment, as something God "does to people," so to speak. You don't even mention what they do to each other and to themselves, and how that would play into any conception of justice. So on free will, your argument is silent.
No, again, my argument is not silent on free will. Its third premise is that no matter what finite crimes persons might freely commit in their finite lives, an infinite punishment is neither just nor loving.
That just means "free will has no relevance." That's false, by your own earlier explanation of why you're not a Determinist, even. So it's true: you have no role for free will in your account.
It's true that free will doesn't falsify any premise in my argument. If you think it does, then you're free to explain which one and how.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:25 pmSo, again: is it your contention that the punishment of infinite, unimaginable torment for finite crimes is just?
Heh. :D No, no, Harry: you do not get to hand me your favourite "script," and have me parrot it for you, or defend your words as if I had to believe what you demand. Those are not my words, and I can speak for myself.
You're caught in a trap...
Again, no, no, Harry: you're you're trying to compel a conclusion without actually looking at the terms you're invoking to do it.

Too Socratic for you? Well, I guess that's too bad. (And I still think that's the funniest "insult" you ever could offer on a philosophy board. A philosopher is "too Socratic". What's next -- If we're speaking about theology, do I get to be "angelic," too?) :wink: Anyway, justifying the key terms you invoke in aid of your conclusion is the necessary step you have to go through.

When we look, we see that you don't have a role for free will, and you don't have any conception of "justice" specified, or "love," for that matter. But you want to arrive at a conclusion about both, while having no account of what they actually are. So God is "unjust" you say. But in a world with no God in it, there's no such thing as "justice," and no expectation of any. So your accusation makes no sense, even on its own terms...

That is, unless you can say what you mean.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:55 am Meanwhile, I'm asking you a question, and you can answer it or not.
And as I wrote in my last post, I've already answered it.
Answer it here. What's your definition of "justice"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:55 am
No, again, my argument is not silent on free will. Its third premise is that no matter what finite crimes persons might freely commit in their finite lives, an infinite punishment is neither just nor loving.
That just means "free will has no relevance." That's false, by your own earlier explanation of why you're not a Determinist, even. So it's true: you have no role for free will in your account.
It's true that free will doesn't falsify any premise in my argument.
Right, that's what you think. So it doesn't change anything, and is irrelevant. Just what I said.

Now, you accuse God of being unjust. So what is your conception of "justice"?

A short definition will do.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

If you have a conception of justice, love, and free will that you think falsifies one or more of the argument's premises, then present it, and we can assess (a) whether it is reasonable, and (b) if so, whether it really does falsify any premise. Until then, the argument remains cogent.
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:18 pm I repeat [my question]: which numbered premise(s) in my argument do you contend are false, and why?
There's nothing to discuss until you do this.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:50 pm
promethean75 wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:28 am please let's just not talk about it. i still can't come to terms with my mortality and the oblivion i am bound for, even after all these years. just now in reading this thread i wuz again gripped by that dreadfully cold, pointless and hopeless feeling i get when i am forced to reflect on my death and the eternal nothingness that will follow it.

i mean if u truly understand what that means dude... not just reading it but thinkin about the implications of that. it's crushing man. it's an existential sadness so heavy that its soul paralyzing, if only for that brief moment when genuinely thinking about it.

and it sucks man. none of us can imagine much less ever want to 'not be there', somewhere, existing. even death row inmates prefer to live in a cell to nothingness.

it's all so hopelessly pointless man. I'm bein sirius. i mean yeah we're all occupied and distracted right now posting or doing whatever, day after day... but it's comin dude. that day is comin and i just can't bear to think about it.

well i guess i would if i were giving an intro into existentialism course but u guys r supposed to know all this stuff. even the mannies and nicks and AJs know it, and r just being pragmatic and making pascal's wager. they don't really believe that religious stuff.
It sounds like you are not in favor of not existing and being in some kind of total oblivion forever. And you think of that state as death.

But to be fair, some people might prefer the state of never having been born at all, over the state of knowing you are born.
WHY do you say, " ..., some people MIGHT prefer ...", when it is a BLATANTLY OBVIOUS Fact that some people ACTUALLY DO prefer that state?
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:50 pm If one prefers life over death then that preference to some other people can just be as terrifying, the thought of always being alive forever. Just as the belief in being dead forever.

The thing is though, you have NEVER known death, you will never experience death.

And also, you have no problem going to sleep each night which is like a death so to speak because you cannot make sleep happen, and you do not even make waking up happen, sleep and waking from sleep are out of your control.
This is NOT necessarily true.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:50 pm Upon falling asleep at night you feel no resistance because you take it for granted that you will awaken in the morning.
Do you take for granted that you will awaken again, BEFORE falling asleep or AFTER and UPON falling asleep?
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:50 pm Even though we have no control over whether we wake from sleep or not. And so I'm guessing that's what death really means, it means being asleep until you awaken from the sleep, just to realise you can no more die than you can live...and that there's just life living itself infinitely for eternity.
Although your conclusion here to me is what is actually and irrefutably True how it follows on, logically, from your preceding sentences/premises I have absolutely NO idea.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:50 pm What if the you that you think and believe yourself to be, is not who you are at all.
The 'you' are just NOT what 'you' BELIEVE, ONCE AGAIN.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:50 pm Rather, what if you are an absolute nothingness of infinite space, and that this timeless and changeless place is all you will ever know and be and experience.
But this One is NOT, and vice-versa 'you' are NOT that One.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:50 pm And that death is just like a little sleep from which you awaken from and sense that absolutely no time has elasped at all between the sense of not-existing to the sense of existing which can happen only within existence itself.


.
'Death', like 'space' and 'time' are NOT 'things' that ACTUALLY physically exist.
Post Reply